User talk:Newimpartial

ArbCom thing

You and I haven't always seen eye to eye about things, but I wanted to tell you that I was impressed by your post on the ArbCom case. It was measured, well-worded, and respectful of both parties, even when you disagreed with their actions. I really respect that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Were you under a voluntary self-TBAN or something? I was monitoring ANI on-and-off during my own voluntary self-PBAN, and I recall you saying something to the effect As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Your recent comments on the Chang AFD (not just your responses to me; your first comment as well) suggest that maybe your self-imposed exile ended slightly before you "had a clue" regarding our deletion policy: have you considered maybe reinstating it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was voluntary, and I have returned to AfD (but generally not MfD) discussions since. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on Omar Khadr

Things make a bit more sense now after the CU blocks. I have to admit that even though I have experience with the master I didn't see that one coming. Meters (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have made a couple of edits to the lede, taking on the two rational points in the sock's ranting, and also reorged the last section of the article so that it reads chronologically, which makes sense to me in that location. The article as a whole is still a many-headed mess, but I'd say the lede now tells the story fairly accurately and succintly. Any pruning you wanted to do, though, would probably help, especially in the messy parts of the article below the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP warning -- Faith Goldy

It is completely unacceptable to go to the page of someone you despise and add 'notability' in the lead for something that you don't like them doing.

Read WP:BLP.

--Nanite (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nanite, I have, in fact, read BLP. The BLP in question mostly read as a non-notable resume, with the subject's notable acts - the ones that actually might merit a WP page - left out or buried at the end. I was adding appropriate material to the lead, as already called for in templates placed by others on the article. This has nothing to do with what I "like". Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to apologise for the tone above -- I saw the inserted self-published youtube citation in the lead and figured it was just a drive-by WP:UNDUE attack. However as you say it is also mentioned in the body, so it's arguably notable. Sorry for assuming bad faith! --Nanite (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries; your tone above was a bit off, but I did understand that your heart was in the right place, as your subsequent edits to the page showed. It is just funny to me to look back on my edit you quasi-reverted, which I made before the subject was fired from The Rebel. At the time the "White Genocide" video was arguably the most notable thing she had done, but she is now clearly more famous for being fired after Charlotteville (and arguably for live-streaming the alleged vehicular homicide that took place). There was quite the edit war over my use of the (sourced) term "sympathetic", although the recent semi-protection should inhibit any more of that.

Anyway, I did get around to removing her rowing captaincy and undergraduate scholarship from the article, at least. Perhaps ironically, it read more like a CV before she was fired ....

As I say, no worries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Global news

Sorry, got that confused with a fringe site. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

American Jews

Please feel free to join the discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you think this fringe viewpoint needs to be featured so prominently. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The answer is, because it isn't fringe. A very casual search on my part turns up at least half a dozen recent, scholarly sources making this point. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Suite Antique

Hi, I see you were working on a draft for Suite Antique. As I've always liked this work, I've decided to write a quick article on it and it's live now. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to look at it or had any things you wanted to add. I'm planning to add a bit more description when I next get time though. Blythwood (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Statesmen

Your reverts were entirely unnecessary and imprudent. The term "politician" is an inarguably WP:POV term to describe someone involved with politics, which is exactly why respected politicians that are still alive such as Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are described as such instead of "stateswoman" and "statesman" respectively. However, as WP:BLPSTYLE does not apply to politicians who are long gone, the term is fine insofar as the term has been used by historians to describe said politician. Basically, the term "statesman" is something that is only used to refer to deceased politicians of significant importance, not for contemporary politicians still living. I hope you will understand this and reconsider your edits.--Nevé–selbert 20:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on the Colin Powell talk page; I would also question whether you understand the policies you are citing, since there is nothing in BLPSTYLE counterindicating the use of the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" when reliable sources describe a person's role as such, and there is very good indication NOT to make up a description for a person based on an ideosyncratic point of view, such as referring to people who, in electoral democracies, have never sought electoral office as "politicians" because you read in Harry Truman that statesmen are dead people. I suggest you not magnify your mistakes using automated tools, in future...Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Jews

Please read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and the message at the top of every talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I have, and I did again before reverting your revert. We are having a disagreement about the application of that policy, you and I: I am not acting in ignorance of it.Newimpartial (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Monica Valentinelli BLPPROD

Let's help you with your reading comprehension:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references [emphasis mine] are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material.

Please note that adding reliable sources [emphasis mine] is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see referencing for beginners or ask at the help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source [emphasis original], you may remove this tag [emphasis mine].

This is not even slightly difficult. So don't edit war over things you're wrong about. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Calton You might wanna back off the hounding with this. BLPPROD specifically states To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag. There were sources originally (reliability is definitely debatable) and have been throughout every revision, therefor BLPPROD doesn't apply in this case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize, as it was my fault, as the script penetrated my Wikipedia editing. I've reverted myself and have fixed the problem. I am notifying The Gnome of this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Template:Z33

I'm just giving you this notice as I've seen that, while the editor you're in a dispute in has received this notice, you yourself have not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The other editor is clearly afoul of 4.1.7 of the final decision. Do you really think that "chromosome supremacist" puts me afoul of 4.1.8? I have since explain that what I literally meant was more "chromosome reductionist" but I was trying to be clever. I can absolutely strikethrough if you are offended. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: American Renaissance and the term "White Nationalist" vs "White Supremacist"

Greetings, I figured I'd talk to you first before risking creating a new trash fire on the American Renaissance Talk Page. Thus, I'm here to ask you, what makes you think that Am Ren should be labeled "White Supremacist" instead of "White Nationalist"?

Personally, my reasoning for having it labeled as "White Nationalist" instead of "White Supremacist" is as follows (I admit, copied right from my own user page): When writing or editing articles on political figures, I am very picky (and somewhat strange, I admit) in what sources I'll cite. This is because the vast majority of reputable sources, whether they be big mainstream publications, or smaller publications, are still over saturated by their bias. Thus, I've found it best to cite directly from the political figures themselves when defining their political views. After all, who can better assess what a person's views and beliefs are than the person themselves? Outside forces can interpret and judge something all they want. But none can ever really know if their assessments are true unless directly confirmed or rejected by the thing being judged.

I don't know what your political views are. Nor do I know if they influence you when labeling it as "white supremacist". But hopefully we can be civil and come to a mutual agreement here. And not have to create more drama on the talk page if necessary.

Cheers, Da secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)da_secret_agentDa secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Da secret agent. As you might have guessed, I have been busy off-wiki.

Basically, my answer is that the reliable sources regard "White nationalist" as a euphemism for "White supremacist", AFAICT, so WP should do likewise. And WP does not privilege what sources say about themselves over what reliable sources say about them; quite the opposite.

Also, the only way to get the kind of terminology changed as you want for this article is to produce a new consensus, either on the article page alone or in a wider RfC or similar process. There really is no short cut. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Apology kitten

Thank you for pointing out my error and doing so calmly. That was a mistake on my part and deserves a WP:TROUT. Please accept my sincere apologies.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean... you're right...

With regard to how discussions of "transracial" people are used in discussion of transgender rights, you're completely right. I think it's important though to keep hammering home the irrelevance of that comparison to the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter how Wikipedia handles "transracial" people when we have explicit style guide instructions for how to handle transgendered people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling User:Chetsford a "clueless editor" who "believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are 'designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego' [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion."

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "clueless editor" comment was unnecessary, and would be happy to strike it on each occasion if you would prefer. The remainder of my comment, however, seems to me to be perfectly germane for each occasion I included it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that maybe best. Chetsford? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Re this edit please give Jbhunley/Essays/ANI advice a read and consider its advice. That edit very likely has changed the character of the ANI discussion from a topic ban limited in both time and scope to the possibility of a long term block or, should you continue to make attacks, an indefinite community ban. I think that would be a shame. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Lest I forget. [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]

Also NB [11]Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And this and also this. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

August 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Newimpartial", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be interpeted as a misleading username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. I know you've been here for a while, but I just wanted to let you know that your username could be interpreted as one violating username policy as a misleading username. No risk of UAA from me, just letting you know others might not be so generous. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, any username with "new" in it could be seen as misleading after ten years, but I don't think that should raise any questions of policy compliance so, no, I don't think it is an"misleading username" in the sense of the policy Newimpartial (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... there's no violation here. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your AE request

Hello Newimpartial, I have just closed your request because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that the edit you reported was not a violation. Userwoman is topic banned from "gender issues" and, while Kavanaugh is currently embroiled in what could be described as a "gender-related controversy" under the GamerGate decision, the article itself is not about gender issues and the edit in question is not about that either. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. I appreciate the close.

My own interpretation of that polling is, perhaps needless to say, somewhat different, based on my own reading on the topic. However, I value the work of administrators in adjudicating what must be a very unruly body of sanctions and requests for action. You're doing an important (and thankless) job. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I said on her talk page, her edit skirted close to the line, although it did not cross it. Probably her topic ban was not formulated in the most accurate way in the first place, since, under the GamerGate sanctions, people can also be topic banned from "people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy", but we have to enforce the topic ban as it has been written

Trans man talk page comment deletion

Hello, I'm wondering specifically how my comment violated the NOTFORUM rule. I provided a brief comment in an ongoing thread, directly on-point, with a specific editing suggestion, backed up with a source. What more do I need to do, exactly, to have my comments NOT deleted? It seems to me that I am simply not allowed to participate, as editors are deleting every single one of my comments, even when I follow what they say. I see comments all over these talk pages that are forum-esque discussion without sources (for example, I saw a very long rant on the trans woman talk page, about 5 paragraphs, that was all just POV without a single source cited; I deleted it, and an editor reverted it, but did not revert my comment, which was also very brief, specifically about a point of editing, with a source). Why am I being singled out? And again, what exactly do I need to do to not have my comments deleted? Thank you very much. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a magic formula for relevant comments, but here are some pointers:

DONT use the Talk page to object to the premise of a sourced article, EVEN IF you have one or two sources yourself. If you want to propose changes to an article in that situation, propose specific changes on the basis of BALANCE instead.

DO use Talk pages to propose specific changes to the article in draft form, not to debate the article's underlying assumptions (which is perhaps the main kind of NOTFORUM violation I run into).

DONT append new comments to old topics that are several months stale, ESPECIALLY to launch into new tangents on those topics. It is better to add new sections in this situation.

DO review the Talk page and its archives to see whether issues like yours have been raised before; in your particular case (people who think that science has produced one definitive definition of "biological sex" which should then also be used in place of, or to define, gender) that position has been discussed to death, on article Talk pages and in community discussions (NPOV noticeboard) and has not met with much support; it is essentially regarded as a FRINGE position. In particular,

DONT make an argument about an article's content that is based in a personal conviction where many other editors have already made similar arguments based on the same personal conviction, or at least recognize in your framing of your intervention that you are raising one more time a point that has previously been made - the onus for quality sources is especially important in this situation.

I really do hope this helps! Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. It's much appreciated, even though we disagree on the topic at issue. I take your points, but still wonder about the appropriateness of simply deleting comments like mine outright, rather than either ignoring them or responding to them on the talk page with something like what you just wrote. Obviously it makes sense to be strict about actual pages, since that's what people are reading, the finished product. But talk pages are for, well, talking, and while I don't think it should be a total free-for-all, I don't really see why the guidelines shouldn't be pretty liberally applied, since there isn't a limit on real estate and few people (compared to Wikipedia readership) looks at them anyway. It really seems like the general guidelines cited as the basis for deleting them can easily be weaponized by editors with status in the community to censor comments they disagree with--not actually based on the egregiousness of the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, but based on a strong dislike of the view expressed. This is demonstrated by the existence of comments like the one I cited--if it were really just about the guidelines, that rant would have been deleted. The fact that my deletion of it was reverted, on the grounds that my motivation of 'making a point' was improper, is just astounding. It is of course true that I wanted to see whether this would happen, but it's also true that the comment was plainly in violation of NOTAFORUM--so regardless of my motivation, shouldn't it be deleted? Isn't it making a point to me to revert it? I've been using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, and I always had a good opinion of it, but this experience of seeing what actually happens behind the scenes, at least on controversial topics, has left me really doubting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a truly reliable 'neutral' source (if such a thing is even possible). Of course I recognize that you don't represent Wikipedia as a whole, but since you seem to be a regular editor, I don't know of anyone better to express this to than you. I'm new here on the editing side, but it really would not occur to me to simply delete a comment on a talk page outright just because I strongly disagree with the view expressed, unless it was egregiously in violation of the rules. To do so just smacks of censorship and political revenge, and most of all, pettiness. Do you get where I'm coming from? --45.48.238.252 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. I mean, editors do not delete comments on Talk pages that they disagree with - that is quite strictly frowned upon - but they do delete comments that are not useful, including POINTey edits and NOTFORUM violations. Article talk pages are in fact not intended to be a free-for-all, and they work best when the discussion is quite tightly tied to specific proposals to amend the article.

And BTW, your tit for tat deletion of what you called a "rant" is an absolutely textbook example of POINTey behaviour, so it was procedurally correct to revert your deletion even if the content you deleted was a NOTFORUM violation. But in fact, looking back on the intervention you deleted, I don't think it is such a violation. It is long and rambly and argumentative, and it doesn't give its sources, but it is eminently source-able (without relying on FRINGE figures) and offers a clear logical structure that advances a particular discussion. This is as opposed to your original Trans-woman Talk comment, for example, which used a stale discussion, COATRACK-sryle, to talk about something that was bothering you without offering any particular contribution to the article.

I would also point out that editors watching the articles on gender identities tend (understandably) to become irritated when people that know little or nothing about the field of gender identity arrive to edit these articles or their talk pages, just as I imagine that editors that watch biology or physics articles would be annoyed when people who know little about their subject matter arrive to edit them, or arrive on Talk to clumsily re-open topics that have been done to death in the recent past. So if you want to make a constructive contribution, don't regard Talk pages as "free-for-all" and try to come up with specific, sourced, non-FRINGE proposals that would improve the content of articles, and be prepared to discuss these proposals in a non-confrontational way, preferably with some humility. And if you care too much about a particular topic to observe the expectations of the WP environment, move to a topic you care less about and contribute there. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to address one more thing. I'm still mystified by the procedural correctness of reverting that edit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was a NOTAFORUM violation that I'd deleted - wouldn't reverting it, based solely on my improper motive, be an example of the reverting editor simply making a point (to me) as well? It seems very weird that a comment violating NOTAFORUM policy (again, assuming this for the sake of argument) would be allowed to stand just to privately punish an editor for his motive in deleting it. Isn't this just making the community suffer, or lowering the quality of the talk page, to sanction an individual editor? I would think that a sanction directed solely at the editor (me), while still deleting the NOTAFORUM comment simply because it's in violation of the guidelines, would make more sense. Is my understanding of this correct, that a comment in violation of the rules can be immunized against deletion if an editor has deleted it because of some improper motive? Thanks. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT, as it describes this situation almost exactly. And while you're at it, read WP:COATRACK and try to think laterally about how it might apply to talk pages (since that discussion is framed for articles).

Wikipedia is governed largely by procedural rules - deleting or restoring a page against a consensus ruling is always wrong, even if that ruling was itself incorrect. Exceeding a revert limit is always wrong (except for COPYVIO or BLP violations) even if the article version an editor reverts to is manifestly better than the one reverted from. Without procedure, there would be chaos and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you could contribute usefully to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Geoffrey C. Grabowski

It took some time and work, but Geoffrey C. Grabowski has passed AFC and is in article space again. :) BOZ (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that, and some of the other orphan children back as well. You do good work. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I also spend lots of time on projects like this one! BOZ (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Re "Hebrew Bible"

Hi. I noticed you reverted my clarification of "Hebrew Bible", citing "unsourced POV". I'm afraid I don't follow, as my edit is less of a Point of View change, and more of recognising the theological differences between and making the article more theologically neutral instead of the previous Christian-centric terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I also refer you to the opening paragraph of this well-written article: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The merger of the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh articles was discussed extensively before consensus was reached. Please read those discussions and start a new Talk page discussion before essaying the change again. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have read The Misunderstood Jew, so I am quite familiar with Levine's argument. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I briefly skimmed over that discussion earlier and I've just had a full-read of it now, and I'm still in support of renaming the page. It looks as though no real consensus was reached to me, not to mention that very few actual references were included in this discussion in relation to WP:COMMONNAME; every reference that I've ever seen to the Tanakh has referenced exactly that, the "Tanakh" (or variations) not the "Hebrew Bible". I've expanded on this under my note here - I'd appreciate your thoughts over there :) 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin

Your most recent revert on the Carl Benjamin article is a 3RR violation. You might want to revert your revert so as not to run afoul of WP rules.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, LedRush, but my first revert and my fourth revert were nearly 48 hours apart. The relevant period for 3RR, as I understand it, is 24 hours. Please advise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. It’s been a long time since I’ve edited on an article this contentious and I thought the rule was more strict than it was. I’m sorry I took up your time.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Henry Morgentaler

Waiting for you to chime in: Talk:Andrew_Scheer#Definition of Henry Morgentaler Shemtovca (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm waiting for a consensus to develop. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

misgender

My argument was not that "one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities" it was that you can only do it if you call some one by a gender descriptor that is substantively different from the gender identity you have asked to be used. Hence why I asked how are guys descriptors different from Fae's. Fae's choice (as far as I can tell) in gender neutral, if Guys ones are also gender neutral he is not misgenderimng them, as they are still being referred to as gender neutral. he is (as I said more then once) being rude and inconsiderate, but that is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is what I referred to as a "sophomoric analytical philosophy argument". In lay terms, you are allowing three values for gender: masculine, feminine, and "gender neutral", and you are saying that no values in the latter category are "substantively different" from one another. This argument is simply bollocks and, followed to its logical conclusion, would posit that editors using "it" for other editors who prefer "they" are not misgendering the latter.

In real life, people whose gender identity is "genderqueer" hold a different gender identity than those whose identity is "neuter", just as those whose identity is "genderfluid" have a different gender identity from those who identify as "nonbinary" or "third gender". If you impose a linear, three-value scale on other people's gender identities you are misgendering them, which is why the contemporary turn has been to allow people to choose their own pronouns rather than dragging, say, zie out of the rhetorical attic as a "gender neutral" third person singular. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And if it was clear which of those "they" referred to you might have a point. The problem is it is not clear, in fact it is not even (as far as I know) yet really recognized as even a gender pronoun, and when it is used it is a gender neutral, I.E. not referring to a specific gender.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we are having a terminological misunderstanding with respect to "misgender". From a grammatical standpoint, we might understand English as having three genders, in which case using "they" for "it" or "zie" is not "misgendering". But the current ethics around pronoun choice is not about grammatical gender - if you were to refer as a trans woman as "he", nobody would be offended on the assumption that you made a grammatical mistake. The point is social msigendering - refusal to accept a person's gender identity. And substituting one non-masculine, non-feminine pronoun for a person's chosen one is every bit as much an act of social misgendering as substituting "he" for "she". Gender identities are simply not indifferent and interchangeable in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No we are having a policy one. We are not here to enforce any social polices from off wiki, we are here (well at ANI) to enforce only Wikipedias polices.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA includes gender identity in the list of attributes that Wikipedians are not to attack each other over, just as it is protected in human rights law where I live. In all of the discussions I have seen on Wikipedia since the large MOS:GENDERID RfC, respect for the gender identity of editors has been understood to be covered by CIVIL and other related policies and norms. Treating other editors with respect is a WP principle, not a "social policy from off-site", and respect for gender identity is an inherent aspect of 21st-century respect. If we can see this clearly for content policies, I don't see why it is occasionally difficult for contributors to see it for conduct policies as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

How was this an attack on their gender ID? Unless it was deliberating mocking the fact they have asked to be regarded as gender...well what gender? It may be the case, or it may not be, it is down to you to show it was used mockingly (rather then just childishly). Maybe it cannot be clearly seen, because it is not really there (well was not meant to be applied in this way) to (paraphrase?) quote another users if you think this should be in policy make the suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To me it is obvious that, if an editor refuses to use another editor's preferred pronouns because the latter editor has asked for certain pronouns to be used, as is Guy's account of his own actions[12] then this is a clear violation of CIVIL, NPA and possibly HARASS. "Childishness of intent" is not really a defense for such behavior - we are all responsible for what we actually do, not simply for what we intend. And I do not find Guy's retrenchment and BATTLEGROUNDiness on this matter at all reassuring.

I do agree that, after the dust has settled from this and from SMcCandlish's previous contretemps, it might be best to further clarify that gender ID is not an allowable pretext to mess with other editors, any more than using the noun "bitch" or casting antisemitic aspersions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Formal"

Many of use do use a rather formal register of English in many discussions here, most especially at noticeboards. If you can't tell that Guy Macon was using one (note, for example, the almost total lack of contractions), then nothing I can say will be very instructive for you, since I lack any magical ability to increase your observational acuity. It was not a non sequitur, and you were not in a position to try to police him for this imaginary fault.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I was commenting, not policing.

Second, while contractions are a personal choice, the Chicago Manual is clearly not intending for its recommendations about "formal" register to be applied in the context of wiki talk pages; its recommendations about formal usage are simply not relevant, regardless of individual picadillos.

Third, the matter under discussion was whether there are contemporary authorities (not op-eds or curmudgeons) that hold that the singular "they" is incorrect grammar or usage. There simply aren't, and the CMOS preference re: formal usage is not a relevant exception.

Finally, as much as I respect people's willingness to defend the rights of others to say things that one would not, oneself, say, I think Floq's close was correct and your own defense of Macron's choices - at odds as it was with his own self-explanation - was ill-advised if, from a certain perspective, valiant. Newimpartial (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting

This was interesting [[13]]. Checkuser blocked. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Refactoring on Talk:TERF

Please don't remove comments simply because you don't agree with them. This was an improper removal. The comment contained no slurs or personal attacks, was not made by an SPA, and is focused on the state of the Wikipedia article rather than the subject itself. It doesn't violate any talk page guidelines. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, User:Bilorv. I actually reread the article and guidelines before reverting the comment, and the comment did not in any way relate to the article I read. I was reverting for non-compliance, not agreement or disagreement - please AGF for my stated edit summary, at least.

Specifically concerning the talk page guidelines, the comment did not follow - in fact, it ran directly counter to - the key bullets in WP:TALK#USE, q.v.:

Be positive

Stay objective

Deal with facts

Share material

Discuss edits

I will not re-revert this, but I have spent a fair amount of time on the Trans-related pages, and the wasted time, energy, and likely trolling and brigading that will follow any discussion consequent to the post in question will be your responsibility, not mine. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about the Meghan Murphy article

Hello, I seem to have encountered an issue on the Meghan Murphy artcile wherein someone has been adding POV language with no justification given in their edit messages. This has happened several times now and as a new editor I'm wondering what recourse I have besides waiting this out if they decide to violate 3RR? LittleFrozenRoses (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the options in a case like this are limited when dealing with an IP editor. Note that is not always necessary to wait until 3RR is violated to make a report, especially when an account has a history of gaming 3RR as part of an EW.

Aside from account-level sanctions, Admins (which I am not) have the ability to impose page protection (usually of the extended-confirmed variety), which at least prevents IPs and brand-new accounts from

unconstructive edits, at least temporarily.

It is worth bearing in mind that others are watching the Meghan Murphy page, beside yourself, so no single editor's POV crusade is likely to do lasting damage to the page.

Happy editing! Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fefil14

I found this edit by him.[14]. WP:NONAZIS applied. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MSNBC

Hello. I see that you reinserted the text about a brief and inconsequential offshoot of MSNBC. You cited wp:NOTTEMPORARY, but that refers to notability, i.e. whether there should be a Wikipedia article about a subject. The applicable guideline for content within an article is WP:WEIGHT. The MSNBC2 product was one of countless initiatives that were tried and rejected when they did not meet expectations. Any business has loads of those. It is of no enduring significance to the topic of the article nor has it had a significant impact on present-day MSNBC. As such, it's UNDUE and should be removed. Please consider and undo your reinsertion. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you thoughtfully considered why I cited NOTTEMPORARY. Notability is not temporary and, indeed, MSNBC2 has its own article. As a reader and knowledge practictioner, I really prefer when these notable topics (especially past failures) are integrated into and linked from the parent articles. Excessive presentism in determining what is DUE is a bane. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

A discussion of your recent edits has been started at WP:AN#User:Newimpartial. You are invited to comment there. Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of policy

You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia policy about how the original names of trans people are handled. It does not – as you seem to believe – state that those names should be censored completely from the article if the person was not notable under their birth name. The policy says that those names are not included in the lede under those circumstances. Removing their original name altogether from the article makes it look as if the subject was given the name they later chose at birth, by their parents, which is untrue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a basis for this assertion in policy or RfC (aside from NOTCENSORED, which has been amply contextualized against no-harm principles in the many RfCs on the subject)? Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for yours? MOS:GENDERID says that when they were notable we should, but doesn't say (as you seem to believe) that when they were not that we shouldn't. In fact, the very next sentence if official hands-off on the subject: "MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names". Furthermore, WP:DEADNAME clarifies that the guideline about notability is specifically about the lede, not the entirety of the article.

An article about a trans person that does not acknowledge anywhere in any way that they were given a different name at birth, and lived with it for however long they did, is presenting a misleading picture of their life. Someone reading this new version of Candis Cayne, for example, might get the impression that she was named Candis by her parents, and infer that this is why she identifies as female. Knowing that she was instead given a boy's name is important to understanding her choice to transition, and its importance to her life story. Wikipedia's first duty is to our readers, to inform them and help them understand the subjects they're reading about. Telling them that is a woman who lived with the name Brendan for her entire childhood and adolescence serves that purpose. An Orwellian article that suggests that she has never had any name but Candis does not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

These issues have been discussed at length in the repeated RfCs that gave rise to MOS:GGENDERID, and the consensus is most definitely not "birth names are not censored". The principal of not doing harm to living people has been specifically recognized in this context, and the harm that can result from provision of dead names has been recognized. The argument you are making, that non-notable deadnames are nevertheless needed to inform WP readers, has been acknowledged and set aside. So do I have to do the necessary searches to point you to those RfCs, or are you able to do it yourself? Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Random RfCs are not conclusive, and MOS:GENDERID is just a style guide. I would love to see a policy that addressed this, so we wouldn't have to deal with this kind round-and-round nonsense every time another drive-by editor gets people wound up about it one way or the other. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about "random RfCs"; I am talking about widely-participated discussions on the issue of deadnaming on WP in general. And this is primarily a matter of how articles are written, so it seems to me that the MOS was precisely the place to document the main findings of those discussions. OTOH, there have been some issues raised about deadnaming and pronoun choice outside the MOS context, such as CIVILity issues, so I wouldn't object to a wider policy as well, to complement the MOS guidance about deadnames and pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry.

Thought I had a better feeling for which of the "proud member of" were inside quotations. :( Thank you for the catch.Naraht (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanx for the catch Naraht (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Important notice re White genocide conspiracy theory

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 (I am not singling anyone out. I am notifying any of the last three editors on that talk page if they have not been notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Chasing my edits

Ok now you appear to be chasing my edits... and reverting "textual errors" that don't exist? There were no textual edits made in Olmecs, what on earth are you talking about? I *fixed* textual errors and you *reverted* the textual errors. What are you doing? Ogress 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You are under the impression that ritually deposited at the shrine at shrine El Manatí is somehow not an error? Or that Nile, Indus, and Yellow river valleys is an improvement on Nile, Indus, and Yellow River valleys. And AFAICT, one of the main reasons 'contribs' links exist is so when someone has made an edit against policy or common sense, other editors can check their work elsewhere to see whether they have done the same - as, indeed, you had. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You felt that you should roll back a large edit instead of just telling me there's an error? It feels hostile. I do make mistakes, I won't lie. Just tell me so I can fix them instead of rolling back all the work, I don't know what the heck you are talking about when you hit ROLLBACK, now do I, and it's frustrating. Now I can fix that problem. I'm American and being forced to move tomorrow during a pandemic and I'll be the first to admit I'm liable to make errors, but mashing "NO" isn't helpful on someone who is legitimately trying to edit an article rather than being a troll. You can just tell someone they made a mistake (assuming you don't want to correct it, which is 100% valid). It's not good faith, I've been an editor forever and I have bad days like everyone else. Ogress 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, you need to be more careful. I still see no advantage in your changes to the Anthropocene article, and in Olmecs I see a lot of inexplicable overlinking of dates and "stylistic" changes that don't result in clear improvements to the text, and then I see edit summaries like "grammar". I am aware that there are different approaches to editing, but my approach is that every change to an article in main space should reflect WP's consensus on the article's topic and should represent a clear improvement, rather than just an alternative or one person's stylistic preference (and also that the area of improvement should be clearly indicated in the edit summary). What I saw in those two edits (not talking about your edits in general) did not meet one or the other of those criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Threading at Talk:LGBT ideology

Hi, Newimpartial. Thanks for your comment at Talk:LGBT ideology#Proposed new title: LGBT ideology in Poland. Would you mind tweaking the style (referring to the bottom-half one, here, in the "poll" part) to make its contextual relationship with the rest of that discussion clear? What I mean, is:

• if it's intended as a reply to my 00:17 21 Aug comment, then prefix it by *:;
• if it's a new comment at the same level as mine and the 16:37, 20 Aug. post, then prefix it with * '''Comment''' or similar
• if it's kind of a general point of discussion about the proposed new title that conceivably could generate some back-and-forth, and it's more of a discussion-opener than a "poll"-type brief response, in that case, precede it by ===Discussion=== or an H3 subsection header of your choice.

All of these are just suggestions, because I have to admit I couldn't tell how you meant that comment, but it's up to you what, if anything, you wish to do there. (If no one else has responded yet, you don't have to follow WP:REDACT; you can alter it as desired; it's yours.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is fixed now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:HOUND warning

Do not follow me around to articles you have never edited before in subject areas you do not edit just to contradict me, as you did here. Continued behavior like this will result in me seeking a one-way WP:IBAN for you towards me. I have plenty of evidence of your problematic behavior towards me, e.g. here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You are attributing behaviour to me that I have not in fact performed. I have been watching the Black Book of Communism discussion for some time, and joined it to comment on Puedo's comment, not to yours (although I recognize I indented it as a response to yours since you had replied before I did and I believe continuing an indent chain is generally less confusing than creating parallel subthreads).

Are you also going to accuse me of HOUNDING here, where my vote came after yours but I (1) agreed with you and (2) have been following the discussion since well before you added your contribution?

As far as your "evidence" is concerned, that didn't get you anywhere last time you were at AfD and I don't see why anything would have changed since. The fact is that our editing interests overlap on LGBT issues and certain other Culture wars topics, and you do not OWN any of those articles just because I haven't edited one of them before. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your comment in that move discussion right after me is in fact further evidence you follow me around, even if not technically hounding in itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

But you see, you are simply wrong about that. I started following that article because I searched the topic on google, then followed the article - at that point I hadn't even looked at the Talk page or nor did I know about the move discussion. Then later I read the Move discussion but wasn't sure how to make my !Vote effective/relevant. Then I read the ANI discussions on the topic, and then - only then - I saw your !Vote (not from your contributions but from my watch list), saw that it might be effective to make a similar !vote but with a different rationale, and so I did. There wasn't even a hint of HOUNDING on my part with respect to that page, not at all. The fact is that the total impact of a "one way iBan" with respect to that page and the Black Book is that, to observe a potential iBan, I would have had to put one fewer colons in front of my Black Book comment (since the comment itself wasn't directed at you).

My sense is that you might be better off taking my Talk page comments at face value rather than assuming that they are somehow about you. They aren't. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

"Surely you are not arguing that Braune is a veritable "Cultural Marxist"?

Veritable? The word you wanted was "card-carrying"!  ;-^ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin's controversial section

I know that the section title is "in plain English," but that's not the motive of my deletion. As I already said in the edit description, headings on a controversial topic should not be allowed in Biography of Living People articles, as summarized by this essay: WP:CSECTION. And this is just one of the many issues wrong with that BLP article. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it reflects a misreading of CSECTION. As the guidance linked there states fairly clearly, it is weighing in against section headings containing the words "ctiticism" or "controversies". The policy by no means discourages sections covering actions taken by BLP subjects, which have attracted negative attention in RS, and which are named using the same, neutral, plain English terms used in the RS cited concerning the subject's actions. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

*eyeroll*

(You are correct that strictly speaking, I violated the rules. I'm probably doing so again here. I should have been more meticulous in my edit. But my suggestion for an improvement to the article was obviously implicit in my complaint.)

GreenWeasel11 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverting my request at admin's talk page

That had better been a mistake. I'm allowed to go to an admin's talk page about it. Not everything needs to go to WP:Requests for page protection. Funnily enough, I was in the process of reverting myself because I realized that Girth may not get to it on time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As noted here it was a mistake, and you have my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NORG

Hi, have you read the first paragraph of WP:NORG as it completely contradicts the WP:NSCHOOL section, also there is consensus for this change at the RFC for the change to WP:CORPDEPTH, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a CORPDEPTH RfC. Care to point me in the right direction? Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Its on section 5 of the archive page here where the close says it does not apply to schools. There is also continued discussion on the following archive page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That was the big NORG rewrite of 2018. I don't see anything there that would suggest that schools that meet NORG would not be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

White people

The article itself says this notion started in the 17th and not 19th century, from what I can tell. Is there an issue I'm missing?Mcc1789 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The key word is "pseudo-scientific". Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Page

Hi there. Contrary to your edit summary, the announcement of Page's transition as a transgender male is widely reported. Please self-revert. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read all the citations of the WP article and much additional coverage, and none of it used the terms "male" or "transgender male". Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Elliot very specifically did not specify binary or non-binary transgender, this is why different articles are making it up as they go along. For the best accuracy, sticking with only identity terms he has specifically used is the most respectful. -- spazure (contribs) 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that principle, but on Wikipedia ABOUTSELF claims do not trump reliably sourced claims. We have no reason to think NBC or CNN are making "making up" the nonbinary identity - which AFAICT comes from the GLAAD press release that I assume Elliot saw before it went out. If we find out that he does not identify as nonbinary, then we clarify the article, but so far no RS (even an ABOUTSELF one) has said this. Newimpartial (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. He also retweeted GLAAD's article, which is good enough for me. Common sense says he could have corrected right then, if it were wrong. -- spazure (contribs) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Your corpses comment just made me laugh my ass off, NGL. After the day I've had, it was a much needed moment of levity. -- spazure (contribs) 08:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

Before deleting referenced quotes, please take a look at the discussion page. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS concerning the addition of contested material, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY about additions to the lede. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not start the edit wars, the edit war was started because of the word "somewhat", which I corrected. The quote does not need approval, as there is nothing controversial about it, it simply states a fact not picking any sides.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misreading the article history, but anyway the place for that discussion is the article talk page. Also, if you've read WP:EW you know that "they started it!" isn't a policy-compliant justification for edit warring. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Elliott Page

I had been looking at an older version of the page. My mistake. I've self-reverted my comment. Thank you for being good about it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, sorry if this is weird I'm not too sure on what wikipedia policy is on these sorts of messages as I've not used the site in ages - just wanted to thank you for all of the work you've been doing on the Elliot Page article! Some of the blatant and wilful misunderstandings of trans people on that talk page and how they understand themselves and want to be viewed by the world makes for grim reading, so I appreciated seeing your name continuously pop up as someone who was calling that out and giving trans people's identities the respect they deserve. Thanks! -- Yrissea (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. And there is no reason not to leave encouraging messages. :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your reverts at Intersex

I have been noticing you reverting my edits at Intersex can you please go into the talk page and explain more in detail why you removed the survey I added.CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of that source has already been reverted by other editors, so the ONUS is on you to reach consensus for inclusion on the article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Newbie(?) editor Leej12255

I observed that Leej12255 did not have a talk page and has never been welcomed. I have done so now. I'm not sufficiently exercised by the topic to pursue the issue but its absence does seem surprising for someone you say has been editing since 2009. It certainly came across as a wp:please don't bite the newbies but I'll take your word for it.

I still don't see it as a wp:NOTFORUM violation but it certainly does read like an unfocused blog post (no bets being taken that it won't appear verbatim on his blog). Even though the talk page has a {{Round in circles}} tag, perhaps it would be friendly to point out the RFC to him since archive searches are only as good as the words chosen for the search. Your time, your call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming him, and if he turns out to be HERE, I will try to encourage a more constructive approach. My tolerance for people who regard Jordan Peterson as a productive colleague is perhaps thinner than it ought to be online, where "nobody knows you're a dog". Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Lukan27

You might want to read this [[16]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thx. As it happens, I did so just before I received your message, but redundancy is helpful at times. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

• Could you please explain further how my changes were "not an improvement", that seems vague. How is it not helpful to indicate where the languages are native to? --IWI (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add geographical fields to the info boxes used for certain language articles, the appropriate course would be to open discussions on the Talk pages for those articles. I don't see an obvious reason why it would be an improvement to add a "nation-state" field, and then only add one of the countries where the language is the (or one of the) official language(s).Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applies here; not every edit requires discussion unless there is previous discussion. It shows where the language is actually native to (it displays as "native to"), I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this parameter. --IWI (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No; once you have tried and been reverted, WP:ONUS applies. Also, languages aren't "native to" anywhere, since nobody gives birth to them. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, now that I have reviewed the parameters for the infobox, it is clear that the field in question is for states where the language is spoken as a native language, not the state of origin. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Yes, once reverted I should discuss it per WP:BRD, but you suggested I should have discussed it before making the bold edit, which is what I objected to. It was a minor edit, and I don't really think it is a big enough deal. Best, --IWI (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you asked me to explain why it is "not an improvement", so I told you. If there were a "native to" field for English, for example, it should list the UK, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Jamaica, Guyana, etc., and probably other countries where people are raised as native speakers of English, such as India and Nigeria. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Billy Tipton discussion

As per WP:BRD & WP:EDITCONCENSUS, please refrain from removing the birth name from the Billy Tipton article without first reaching consensus at Talk:Billy Tipton. There is already a discussion there about this very issue. Peaceray (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't invoke BRD (or CONSENSUS) as support for your edit war to maintain a BOLD addition to an article. WP:ONUS specifies that the burden is placed on those adding contested material to obtain consensus before doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS does not trump WP:EDITCONSENSUS; both are English Wikipedia Policies. I would argue in fact that EDITCONSENSUS is at the heart of the Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility pillar.

WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages. It is true that it is neither a policy or a guideline, & there are alternatives. It does seem to me that changes around the birth name do require consensus.

Since the birth name has been part of the article since its creation on 2003-01-15, I think that makes a strong case for EDITCONSENSUS rather than your claim of ONUS, which dates from today, 2021-01-28.

As noted there is an ongoing discussion. Peaceray (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

But there is nothing in EDITCONSENSUS that conflicts with the provision in ONUS that contested material be removed until consensus is reached to include it. This provision therefore applies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Such an interpretation would allow the removal of substantial amount of existing material from an article because one to a few bold editors choose to contest it. In fact, ONUS is heavily weighted towards consensus. Even a bold ONUS does not trump previous consensus. ONUS speaks to inclusion, which by definition refers to newer material. No, there is nothing in ONUS that implies that it overrides consensus. Peaceray (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to a previous consensus for inclusion of the DEADNAME at Billy Tipton? I haven't seen one. Silence is not consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has used consensus decades before Wikipedia came to be, I suspect that you do not have a complete understanding about what constitutes consensus. Please read the Consensus decision-making article to gain some insight.

You state Silence is not consensus. On the contrary, in the Quaker & other traditions, silence does produce consensus.

Since the EDITCONSENSUS has included the birth name since the creation of the article, the onus is on you to produce reasons for excluding it. For that, I will turn the question on its head: Can you point to a previous consensus for exclusion of the birth name in any article about a historical transgendered person? Peaceray (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are the one who is misconstruing what is meant by consensus on Wikipedia - although it does not require unanimity, it is an active, verbalized consensus only that is policy-relevant. And in the absence of a prior consensus based on discussion, ONUS applies and contested material is to be excluded unless consensus is formed to include it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you & I have very different interpretations of consensus on Wikipedia & ONUS. I believe that anything that is put into the article within policy & guidelines & has met EDITCONSENSUS requires consensus to remove. No ONUS required. If I understand you correctly, you believe anything in an article is fair game for removal & requires ONUS to keep it in. Both of us are experienced Wikipedians, with you having registered a few years before me & with me having considerably more edits than you. Both of us are familiar with policies & guidelines, albeit with opposing interpretations. I think that continued discussion here is likely to prove unfruitful. Therefore, it is probably best to leave the discussion here & take it to article or WikiProject talk pages where others can offer their input. Peaceray (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That is as may be, but the second sentence of WP:EDITCONSENSUS reads, Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus (emphasis added). For edits that are disputed - and in this case, disputed by multiple editors - the provision from WP:ONUS applies, specifying that contentious material be removed until consensus is reached. This doesn't seem to me like a noticeboard-worthy or complex case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. Contentious information is a different ball game than merely information people want to remove. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES applications.

Yes. I've noticed that you're reverting my application of MOS:JOBTITLES at the intros of bios of Canadian governors general. FWIW, I've grown weary of these disputes. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: Why did you revert only some of them? They go back to 1867. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was proceeding forwards from the one I stumbled upon; I will now go backwards. The first few I found were simply wrong per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3, and I have modified a couple of others for consistency. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to 'lower-case' in the intros. But, I'm concerned that the push for 'lower-case' has spread to article titles & article section headings. Something for yourself, @Surtsicna: & others to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You edit roleplaying games articles?

I'd love to cooperate with you on one, as a sign of no hard feelings. Your choice of which? Or I can choose if you prefer. --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You can choose anything that isn't related to Dungeons & Dragons :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool! I went to WP:RPG, saw they have a list of requested articles, and am going to do an initial source search for each, and put the results at User:GRuban/RPG cooperation. You can help, or just wait for me to gather the info, and we can pick one. So far, I have almost certainly found enough reliable sources for Cthulhu for President, but it's only tangentially going to be an article about the roleplaying game. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I see no problem reaching out to authors so long as you don't get to the point of COI. And I support the line-based approach, grouping information about a few books together, compared to a narrow single book-based approach. So in the case of GURPS:STEAMPUNK there would be at least, what?, four printed volumes plus additional e-publications? Mind you, 2000-01 was close to a nadir of independent, RS RPG reviews, but I will see what I can find. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also be happy to chip in at the margins of Cthulhu for President, since I found it quite amusing back in the day. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Related: User_talk:BOZ#Review_sources? I don't suppose you have access to the relevant issue of Alarms and Excursions?

Sadly, no. And as I say, my access to non-SJG sources for that period is quite poor. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

One user who might have it is Guinness323? BOZ (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sent mail to Guinness323. William Stoddard wrote back, and is interested in helping, but doesn't seem to have any print sources other than what is on the web. I started to gather those into User talk:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk - I'm guessing it's all right to use the user page you earlier created for this purpose? --GRuban (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes; that is perfect. I have made a couple of (unsigned) comments in reply, but feel free to use that space however you like in this process. Treat it as though it were a Draft page, if you like, or move the content elsewhere once content there is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a lot of sources, and can create an interesting GURPS Steampunk article but I'm worried that it won't meet Wikipedia:Notability. We've got one Origins Award, but other than that it's mostly primary sources, and a bunch of self-published blogs. https://www.rpg-collecting.com/gurps/ says it won 3 awards, but that was news to Bill Stoddard, so is likely in error. I also got in touch with Phil Masters, who also didn't know any published reviews (though he was able to release an image for our article about him, so not a total loss). It may well be deleted at WP:AFD. If that doesn't bother you, we can start writing it anyway, and just take our chances. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BOZ: There's a chance! I found this site: https://annarchive.com/ which seems to have full scans of many, many old gaming magazines! We won't be able to link to it, as I doubt they have the actual rights to host them, but we can read them. The https://annarchive.com/dragon.html Dragon index page seems to be broken, but the links exist, for example https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg126.pdf. I don't think it's searchable, so it'll have to be searched the old fashioned way, by looking roughly around the time the thing was released and lots of clicking and reading. Pinging BOZ, who makes more articles about old games in a week than most people do in a lifetime, so this site might be most useful to him. --GRuban (talk)

Thanks for the ping! :) Yep, that is definitely an excellent resource which I have used over and over again, that and the many more scans on archive.org.  :) BOZ (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Cthulhu for President

However, I've started Draft:Cthulhu for President. That has sources like The Guardian and L'Obs, so should survive AFD. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead with Cthulhu for President. I was disappointed not to find any GURPS Steampunk references in Designers & Dragons Vol. 2, and I would also rather not go without a second unimpeachable RS besides the award, so I'll keep looking. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I went on a roll and put in everything I could think of. Please improve how you can. I'll also send an email to Chaosium and/or Cthulhu For America to see if they would release an image of one of their posters or stickers for the main article image, or if they have any suggested revisions. (Honestly, 75% chance they won't even write back - but that's not 100%, and it would be nice if they do!) When you're happy, and when we're done waiting for Chaosium, we can inflict it on an unexpecting main space! Mwuahahahah.... --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Chaosium (Michael O'Brien (game designer) in fact!) wrote back; not going to release any bumper sticker image. But did ask for correction of the Cthulhu rights (they believe Cthulhu the character is public domain, but the status of the Mythos in general is confusing; I'm just going to remove that rights text from the draft), and confirmed that Chaosium has nothing to do with either cthulhuforamerica.com or cthulhu.org (that was before his time, but not as far as he could figure out). --16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Now "Samir Al'Azrad" (of CthulhuForAmerica.com) wrote back! (I think I know his real name, but if he wants to be Samir Al'Azrad, so mote it be.) He confirmed he's not connected with Chaosium, but pointed out that Cthulhu for President predated the Chaosium accessories bundle, by pointing to this image of Steven King wearing a Cthulhu for President t-shirt in 1983: https://www.tor.com/2018/08/10/forbidden-planet-40th-birthday-mark-hamill-neil-gaiman-stephen-king-pics/ (about halfway down the page). Unfortunately I don't think we can cite that as a source. He also confirmed that they didn't get much press for the 2020 campaign. He did write an associated book Your Stars are Wrong in 2018, but it didn't get any real reviews. However! He agreed to release two Cthulhu political images! See the bottom of https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/

• It would be good if we could find a source for Cthulhu for President before the Chaosium accessories bundle
• Do we want to add more political slogans? "Give fear a chance"; “Equality through insanity”; “Legalize human sacrifice”; “Keep climate changing”; "I want you to get a head and consume it for nourishment.” "Answer the call"; "Are you ready for a real change?" "Make R'lyeh great again" - I think there are others we can find out there if we look at the archived web sites we write about.
• We should pick an image for the main article image; I think I like the left hand one on https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/, but the other one isn't terrible. Or we could make one, after all, there should be plenty of Richard Nixon federal government images in the public domain, and the Cthulhu character is public domain (not immediately obvious, but Chaosium says it is, and they should know), so we can grab the head from one and paste it on the the other, and make something like https://www.pinterest.com/pin/24418022951030606/... but that would take work. Which would you prefer?
  • When we do, we could remove the current Cthulhu sloshing through R'lyeh image, or keep it, what do you think?

I'll wait for your feedback, but other than that, I think we're ready to go live! --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You might also want to consult User:Sciencefish as I believe he has a connection to Chaosium. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And just to give a couple of quick, knee-jerk responses, I prefer the existing left-hand image of over a newly created one, but I'm fine to have multiple images. Also, I do favor the inclusion of multiple slogans; my favorites include "Give fear a chance" and "Keep climate changing", though I have a soft spot for "Are you ready for a real change?" as well.

I was looking for some pre-Chaosium connection between Cthulhu for President and Campus Crusade for Cthulhu: the latter is pretty clearly the older of the two, but I haven't found any RS documenting a relationship, or even any good anecdotes. Perhaps others could take a look? Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Aww, we don't have a Campus Crusade for Cthulhu article. Maybe we can make one later; though that's even farther from role-playing games. I'd be very happy if you were to add in a section of cited (and funny!) campaign slogans to Draft:Cthulhu for President, that would make it a real collaboration. I'll put up the image. I tried to find an appropriate article infobox for it, but couldn't - you'd think there'd be one for a perennial candidate, but there isn't. Even Vermin Supreme actually has something like a real office! There is Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign, but it doesn't have a space for a candidate image, just a logo, which we don't have. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll push it live for now, but if you can add a slogans section, it'll be great! --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the RS for slogans on the weekend and was not inspired, but I will take another look if nobody else shows up to do better. :) Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cthulhu 2016

Want to help with a WP:DYK blurb? I think this article is thoroughly DYK worthy, especially with the image, but the blurb is troubling me. I was thinking of Did you know "... that cosmic horror Cthulhu has run for President of the United States in every election since 1996?" but there isn't a specific source that says that. The Wall Street Journal says the campaign has gone on for multiple election cycles, and we have a source for every election cycle since the Chaosium campaign materials in 1996, but not a single source that says "every Presidential election". Do you think that's all right, or do you have a better idea? --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't actually see this last post, so this isn't timely. I think "every election" is fine. I'm afraid I have had other things on my mind this month, so I haven't been able to help with the new article, but I'm glad to see you got it off the ground. Fun! Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not dead, which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons, even a third party candidate can be elected. Seems to have passed DYK review. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow!!!!! --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#April_1_stats: The totals are in, and Cthulhu for President, submitted by User:GRuban, was the big winner with 24,992 views. The complete totals can be seen at April 2021 DYKSTATS. Cbl62 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Woo! --GRuban (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk

OK, I think I'm basically played out, have put in all I can immediately think of. I'll email Stoddard and Masters, have them take a look at it, see if they have any comments or suggestions. If I had your email address I'd add it, so they could copy you directly, but I don't, so at best will be able to forward you their response via Wikipedia mail form. Also you wanted to add something about Castle Falkenstein and/or GURPS Castle Falkenstein? I'm still only 50% sure it would pass WP:AFD - it does have lots of references, but the respectable ones are few and short, while the longer and more detailed ones are not that reliable. Maybe it just won't get nominated - I don't think I've annoyed anyone ... recently ... By the way, I have noticed, and appreciated, both you and User:BOZ regularly sending me thank-you messages as I hack away at it, and admit they have been regular incentives to keep working! No, I can't guarantee that would work for GURPS WW2, I might just be role-playing exhausted for a short bit. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

OK cool, if you like, I will move the page to article space either later today or tomorrow. :) BOZ (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If you could hold off until I leave another message here, I'd appreciate it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's also wait for Masters and Stoddard to respond, last time I wrote they responded in a few days. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your work, GRuban. I think I have one or two sources to add outside of the GURPS:Castle Falkenstein material, and then I'll have some editing I want to do as well - nothing against what you've done: I just have an inchoate mental model of how I like to see these articles written, and I'd like to see that reflected before it is moved to article space, if possible. And then we can ask BOZ to move it. :)

On Notability, I may well be wrong, but my sense is that the most vulnerable articles are the ones that seem poorly sourced - where they use a lot of non-independent sources or use the "real" sources badly - rather than ones where there are potential issues of SIGCOV within a source that is a valid, independent RS. In other words, RS (such as independent notices of awards) that back up a claim to notability based on NBOOK will tend to overcome people's desire to wikilawyer how many sentences are required to meet SIGCOV.

Now I've lost more battles than I'd like on AfD (formerly to deletion, recently more often to redirection), but that's what I feel that I've learned. So I'm not that worried about this one, compared to most of the list on my project page - some of the company pages, in particular, are highly vulnerable as well as being terribly confusing articles in their own right. Another thing I've learned but only once put into practice (Marcus Rowland (author)) is that well-written articles usually survive AfD. I just hate to reward AfDsters by fixing the problems they see, but at a time like now where deletion isn't very active, there would be time to do some preventative work. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! A real collaboration was the goal all along. Please hack away ruthlessly, at worst it will all be in the edit history, we can always argue about any issues after we see how it looks. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done all I'm going to for today (User:BOZ). I've added the Falkenstein bits, realigned the Difference Engine material so that the main book's publication moves towards the top of the article and the licensed material is kept together; this also keeps the sausage-making "inside RPG" anecdotes in one (licenses) section, which I think will suit most readers. I revised the lede to strengthen the claim to significance and reflect the scope of the article.

I still have a couple sources for actual GURPS Steampunk I want to work in on another day; I am also really hoping that somebody other than me knows how to bring in cover images, at least for the main book and the four others I've inserted templates for. Is that possible? Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

One note on page numbers, you might want to see template:rp. BOZ (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ. So the current status is: I've proposed on the article's talk page that we should use GURPS Book templates in the 4e section, but I'm waiting to hear back from you two before I go ahead with that. Also, I still have a couple of sources to add and some tweaking to do to the main GURPS Steampunk entry; I suppose that could be done in article space, but if GRuban is waiting to hear from the authors then I'd rather make changes while the article is still in draft. Overall, it looks pretty good to me for a draft article - almost Origins Award worthy. :)

But will anyone be able to track down the five cover images? (GURPS Steampunk, SteamTech, Screampunk, Castle Falkenstein, and Castle Falkenstein: Ottoman Empire? Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I love it, this is a real collaboration! Thank you both! I can find cover images, I didn't think of them at first. I'm worried they're going to be a bit much for the smaller works that don't have that much text for them, maybe we just want steampunk and falkenstein? Anyway, I can put them in and we can see how they look. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather include the five covers, and make the first one big and the rest small. We can do that, can't we? The SteamTech cover isn't much, as I recall, but I like the Steampunk and the Ottoman Empire ones. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've got the files, but, technically, we're not allowed to use fair use images in user space. (WP:NFCCP#9). I can add them when we go to main space. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you tell me what they're called, maybe I could preview them without saving them to the draft in any diffs? I'd just like to see what it looks like at different sizes on different screens before trying to convince you two to include them. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-E9tA0R70c9on-X9MHM1jZWoBHUv7_KjLVMZTMceK1o/edit?usp=sharing --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So I've done a full sample version here using "dummy" pictures of Basic Set covers. (I think that's allowed, and if not then just revert and look at the old diff.) I chose the image I did because the 1e cover is 279x356, and the 3e cover is 150x199, and I wanted to test the difference in sizes but I don't know how to resize within the template.

So my take is that this version looks good on desktop (and desktop mode on my phone), and OK in mobile mode on my phone (the ability to open and close sections is a saving grace). The difference in image sizes helps emphasize the main GURPS Steampunk book.

On the other hand, I don't like the G:F:OE cover or the Screampunk cover as much as I remember, while actually I like the SteamTech cover more than I remember. So maybe a compromise would be to include the Steampunk, Castle Falkenstein, and SteamTech covers - one per section - and keep boxes without covers for Ottoman Empire and Screampunk. How would you feel about that?

Either way, I feel like I need to add a bit of text to the SteamTech and Screampunk entries, but I was planning to drop sources on the main Steampunk section anyway so I should be able to do it then. Thanks again for getting the ball rolling on this! Perhaps the Hellboy Sourcebook and Rollplaying Game can be next! :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The version with all the images looks good to me. I think there's an image_size= parameter in Template:Infobox RPG that you can play with, try |image_size=300px, |image_size=150px, they should do something. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

OK; thanks for the vote of confidence. I still have a day or so while you wait on Masters and Stoddard? You know the Hellboy game is his also, yes? Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Did not. Have read the comic and seen the movie, but don't think I've ever played any GURPS, though did a fair number of rounds of Melee and Wizard in my day. Maybe one day. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Masters, I mean, not Stoddard. The Hellboy and Discworld games are his masterworks, really. And I don't know anyone who plays GURPS any more, but I did have a good run back in the day. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@BOZ and Newimpartial: Masters wrote back, had a few suggested tweaks that I made, Stoddard didn't write back, but it's been a number of days. I think we can push it live and add cover images. Any suggestions for DYK blurb? --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good by me then, I'm going to go ahead and publish it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's great! I've finished my first pass of edits in article space. Thanks, both of you! Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/GURPS Steampunk --GRuban (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, GRuban, apart from the articles I've mentioned before (or added to the box myself), one I might also be motivated to help with is Countdown (Delta Green). Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do not mess with other people's AfD comments

I've reverted your deletion here. Surely you know better than to do this. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mangoe. @Newimpartial: What was your reason for reverting my vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

I am so sorry. I have no idea how that happened. You have my sincere apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

These things can happen. Apology accepted. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

WTW collapse

Hi, I don't think you really wanted to collapse numerous votes at WTW in this edit at WT:WTW, did you? I haven't reverted, but doubtless someone else will soon, if you don't first (which would be preferable). Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathglot. I think it's fixed, now. Clearly I was too tired last night to sift for the meaningful contributions amid all the BLUDGEON. I'm feeling sharper this morning, but by all means take a look. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

re. sex

Someone appears to have removed the discussion (assuming it ever was on the corresponding talk page) regarding the edit you just reverted. Failing (1) the discussion's re-emergence, (2) a lack of dissent on the talk page thread I created, or (3) direction to where that discussion is now occurring, I may restore the edit at some future point. To the merits and notwithstanding protocols, the current lead paragraph hardly qualifies as a definition that unequivocally relates to the article itself. I hardly agree that the edit's substance was "bold," but I won't deny how intrepidness applies to my m.o. in posting the edit on short notice. And I hardly agree that anything in the edit fails to represent an encyclopaedic practice. Need evidence? Refer to wording in the article on gender. Not convinced? Please quarrel with Waite Stevensen (whom I quoted from the given cite still in the article), not with me. I can't say I'm pleased with the cited definition, but that's what it is. If we quibble with Stevensen's wording. I'd be happier with, "Sex refers to the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, male and female organisms within a species, including humans." IMHO, it's a better definition (and mirrors what's in the gender article). Yet it's assailable as original research.

For what it's worth, I'm not set on changing the definition here one way or the other. My main concern is providing my own readers with a sensible definition of life expectancy. I had opted to link my own lexicon's mention of that phrase to Wikipedia rather than define it myself. Yet, Wiktionary's definition had one item in need of emending, hence my change from its mention of "gender" to "sex." (See here.) Assuming that edit stands, the correlation between the life expectancy definition and the non-definition in the sex article, as currently published, makes for a ridiculous nexus. I'd be just as happy to wash my hands of the rigamarole that often encumbers getting a consensus around here and simply add a sensible definition for "(biological) sex" to the 500,000+ words I've already defined in my lexicon. Whatever, but I'd be remiss to let Wiki's current "sex" definition remain without saying I gave it a shot.

Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I reopened the discussion here, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And again FWIW, "Gender" currently opens with Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Although I had not looked at that lede recently, "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to..." is more logically similar to my "Sex is a category in which some organisms are classified into..." than your, ahem, more robust proposal "Sex is either of two main categories...". I hope this is apparent. Yours defines the domain as the categories, while mine (and "gender") define the domain in relation to the categories. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Before knee-jerking to the "undo" tab re. my latest edit, I urge you to instead consider your own substitution of any definition that starts with "Sex is ..." or "Sex refers/relates to ..." In sum, the gist of my beef with the article's lead is that it opens with circumlocution about organisms. It sounds like grandpa trying to explain the birds and bees to an 11-yar-old. I'd further urge you to just leave the edit as is to test your theory about how many others (if any) will quarrel with the change. To date, the discussion page has generated nary a comment on the matter. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; my objections to your previous proposal don't apply to this one in the same way. We'll see what other editors think. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Shocking. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

Wikipedia Source had false information. Part of it can be added back after an edit, or it can be added back in its entirety after a disclaimer is made. Nate Rybner 23:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not actually attribute the Dayton shooting to Antifa. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Except it does. Read the article and it’s sources again. Nate Rybner 23:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

I did. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Big League Politics is not remotely a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

	LGBTQ+ Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts to explain things at Talk:Irreversible Damage; I think you're doing a better job than I am GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that I am doing a better job, but I am doing a different job. Sometimes that helps. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

NSPORTS SNG/GNG

There have been a couple cricketer AfDs kept recently even though they fail WP:GNG and I feel like I'm losing my mind - per the WP:SNG discussion, am I under the correct impression that WP:NSPORTS requires the GNG to be met? SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are losing your mind :), but the 2017 RfC established that the NSPORTS SNGs for each sport are only presumptive of GNG Notability - that is, the GNG must be shown to be met as well. The language currently in NSPORTS is pretty clear on this also. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

You may have an opinion to offer on this? Best. Acousmana 15:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank You

I’m a very new editor and I’ve been reading a lot of talk pages to get the hang of policy, guidelines, mores, best practices, and the general editing culture here. You and I seem to have a lot of the same academic interests and professional expertise (and probably know some of the same real-world people!). Paying attention to how you edit and how you interact with others has been invaluable to me. Your work keeping Critical Theory- and philosophy-related articles accessible, accurate, and (what’s maybe of most importance for this project) free of simpleminded reductionist conspiratorial bullshit has been amazing. So thank you. I hope to one day be able to contribute at even one-tenth your level. Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. One thing about this place that I have learned the hard way, and with difficulty, is to avoid personalizing disputes. I don't entirely manage this even now, but the low points arising from on-wiki drama in the past were very low. My advice (do what I say, not what I do) would be to try to catch yourself before righteous anger starts to cloud your judgement. ;) I suspect that you are doing fine, so far. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

How about this one

You worked a minor miracle on Ken Cliffe; do you see anything more that can help build up David O. Miller? BOZ (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything for that one, sorry. I do hope to add to Draft:Dean Shomshak, however. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

How about Draft:Richard Halliwell (game designer) who just died? I am looking for a reliable source for his death, but have not seen one yet. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Post-apocalyptic role-playing video games has been nominated for deletion

Category:Post-apocalyptic role-playing video games has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RPG resurrection

It's an ambitious project that I've barely started and it's already huge, but if you spot anything that stands out as potentially salvageable at User:BOZ/Games deletions, just let me know and I will draft it. :) BOZ (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ. I appreciate the work you've put into this already, and the taxonomy of the deleted pages is a real value-add, I think. You don't need to draft a dX RPG page because I have that one on the go already; if I see any others that I'd like help relaunching, I'll let you know. Guardians of Order and Tri-stat dX have been my "current project" for a while now, but I just haven't found much time for wiki recently, I hope that will change - I actually like to add to the stock of wiki knowedge more than defending what's already there, in spite of all appearance to the contrary. :P Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Tabletop role-playing noun

I am not a fan of the Retronyms. It is especially not needed in a short description which should be concise. I have seen you add tabletop to a few recently. Is there some consensus I am unaware of? —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that there has been a formal RfC or project-based discussion, but the term "tabletop" has been used fairly consistently and unontroversially in WP articles for a decade or more - including in lede sentences and short descriptions - to exclude LARP and computer games. Since the consensus isn't formally documented that I know of, it would not be inappropriate for you to launch an RfC or similar, but there is quite clearly a de facto consensus at present. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

FTR: You appear to be the most common source of the tabletop retronym based on the short description changes I see. Many of the wikidata imports I have done recently did not have the 'tabletop'. I have no problem with your adding it. I just find it hard to call what I see consensus. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I have indeed added the term in question to short descriptions - particularly, but not exclusively, in cases where you overrode the wikidata. However, I am seldom the editor who added the term to the lede (which populates the wikidata in the first place, AFAIK). My statement that the term "tabletop" has been used fairly consistently and unontroversially in WP articles for a decade or more - including in lede sentences and short descriptions - to exclude LARP and computer games is beyond dispute, really, but WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and once again feel free to launch an RfC or similar if you believe that it has. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been learning from you following me and correcting. I will be updating my internal algorithm soon. It is I who will change. Soon I expect you won't have to "fix" my incomplete short descriptions. I am nearly through all the unrated/prioritized articles.

BTW: I do see a difference between the lede and the short description but that is a topic for another day.

Happy editing to you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Many years ago, on Newhoo, aka the Open Directory Project, I waged a war not to have RPGs shunted into the "Tabletop" Roleplaying ghetto. "We dice players came first!", I cried. "Let the electronic Johnny-come-latelies have the Video Game subcategories, leave the main Roleplaying Game category to us!" Alas, we've been way, way outnumbered since. The battle is lost. The sub-category is ours. Let us swig a tall mug of mead together, and sing sad elven songs. --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Talkback: CRT

Hello, Newimpartial. You have new messages at Talk:Critical race theory#Undid Edit Revert.
Message added 17:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maddata (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

revert a revert

to re-edit is the same as reverting a revert. you should have opened a conversation on the talk page. at this point i expect you to revert your own edit and do that. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spione:_Story_Now_in_Cold_War_Berlin&curid=44480720&diff=1032296066&oldid=1031348416&diffmode=source —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Philoserf. WP:BRD is a best practice, but it isn't a requirement. I responded to the (valid) reason for your revert - the contrast with the lede - by fixing the lede, and then re-instituting the shortdesc. In terms of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you will see that there are many shortdescs out in the wild that include the author's name, and for indie or auteur RPGs this is equally valid. If you disagree; fine, disagree, in whatever forum you think appropriate, just don't expect me to self-revert when I haven't done anything against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I see you are establishing a pattern across a few short descriptions. I will keep that in mind. I hadn't seen that pattern often in my travels. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a point of reference, when I started editing on WP, there were many, many lede sentences of RPG articles that included publisher information but not author information, even in cases where both were equally verifiable (that is, setting aside publishers like White Wolf and Dream Pod 9 who tended to obscure the author credits by listing a long list of contributors equally).

It is simply wrong to credit publishers rather than authors/designers, in cases where clear author credits exist, and is especially egregious with non-notable publishers and auteur/indie designers. Therefore I have gradually been improving those ledes, but haven't ever gone systematically through them.

So this doesn't mean that I think all games should have author credit in the shortdesc, but for indie/auteur games this is in fact the defining characteristic. I did insert some small number of these before, but as you have cleaned up more RPG articles (which I appreciate) I have gone ahead and added authors to shortdescs where they are clearly significant, as well as (I'm sure you've noticed) adding genre to games where this characteristic is not subject to dispute and defines the game.

I hope this helps clarify my thinking. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

short descriptions

Thanks for the cleanup as I processed all the unrated/unprioritized articles in WP:WikiProject Role-playing games. That should be most of the ones that needed attention. My next pass will be over all articles in priority/rating order from the top. Should be fewer this pass. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

2006 vs 2021

What objections do you have to the (modified) 2006 version? Tewdar (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

And what advantages does the appallingly tautologous, uninformative, inaccurate, and badly-worded 2021 version have? Tewdar (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My main issue is that it is too limited in scope, at a time when organizations that are not notably "feminist" (q.v. Statistics Canada) define and use the distinction. Also, in principle, I don't see how a 2006 lede could ever summarise a 2021 article except in areas where scholarship is static (and this is not one of those).

And another issue: throwing spackle at the lede in the form of BOLD edits is always less policy-compliant, and almost always less effective, than clarifying issues on Talk pages before bringing the result into the lede. The current lede need have no advantages whatsoever, besides being the status quo, and that would still be the correct version to leave in place during discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The current lede was the result of a BOLD edit three months ago which overturned *years* of status quo, had no consensus, and left the lede embarrassingly unencyclopedic.

Forget 2006. I simply based the first sentence on an earlier, much better, more accurate summary of what the article is about.

If you just don't like the academic disciplines given as examples, these could simply be deleted or extended, rather than revert revert revert revert revert all the time... Tewdar (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If you don't think WP:ONUS and WP:BRD are more relevant to lede-writing than WP:BOLD essentially all of the time, then I don't think you grasp the Zeitgeist of the project. And if a bad BOLD edit was made three months ago, the solution is to restore the status quo ante (after appropriate Talk page discussion), not to time travel back to 2006 and kill someone's grandfather. Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)::::

How about March 2021, which had a lede which was stable for *years*? Tewdar (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least bringing that one back wouldn't be a WP:POINT edit, which the 2006 one pretty much was. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation, and totally false. I was looking at the article history, and honestly believed the 2006 first sentence was better than the current one. Tewdar (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

So simply bad judgement, then. Good to know. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it was in line with the views expressed on the talk page (no definitions in the lede), attempted to avoid the tautology currently in the lede, took out the wall of citations, and avoided controversial or loaded language as in the March 2021 lede. Please explain how this is "bad judgement". And please try not to be quite so rude sounding. Tewdar (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Challenge not accepted. I have said my piece. If you want to explain what controversial or loaded language you think was added in March, that's up to you, but otherwise I think we're done. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's an RfC now on that page (if I did it right),to which you are cordially invited. BTW, by "controversial or loaded language", I meant the biological definitions of sex and such which people seemed to object to or find unnecessary, which I tactfully left out of my last edit. It was great talking to you. Tewdar (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"In English-speaking contexts, a person's sex is distinct from their gender..." "In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably." FFS... Tewdar (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This distinction exists in English-speaking contexts, but is often not used in ordinary speech. I think that sums it up nicely, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Your latest edit summary is disingenuous. "Better English" indeed! If you want to say a person's gender "definitely is" distinct from their sex, rather than "may be", why not just say so? On the talk page? And attract consensus? In accordance with WP:BOLD and WP:THIS and WP:THAT and WP:THEOTHER? FFS... Tewdar (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Having said that, if you have finally given your stamp of approval to something that at least is not a total embarrassment to Wikipedia, I won't change what you've done. Tewdar (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I made two changes in that edit: to replace "may be distinguished" with "is distinct" and "that person's" with "their". I regard both of those as simple and direct improvements in English prose. The art of compromise on WP is complicated and uncertain, and I do not pretend to have mastered it; for example, as you were making your previous BOLD change in accord with my suggestion I was drawing up a long Talk page intervention to formally propose that text and seek consensus prior to making the change. But when I saw that you had gone ahead, I held back to see what would happen and when Crossroads objected, I was (and still am) uncertain as to how he might be cajoled towards a better lede. But clearly, que sera sera. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I approve of the change to "their".

Compromise is achieved much more readily on the archaeology and linguistics articles that I normally edit. Perhaps I need to adjust my expectations a little.

I genuinely am trying to improve that article. I still think that changing "may be" to "is" changes the meaning, and not just the English prose. Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer "is distinguished..." if we can't use "may be distinguished" Tewdar (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, to speak for myself, I don't see any unsupported meaning of "is distinct" vs. "is distinguished" - both normally mean that the two are different things, which is what the sources support. There is a terrain where the two phrases overlap in meaning, and for that meaning, "is distinct" simply seems to me to be more precise - by contrast, the potential voluntarist reading of "is distinguished", or even more so "may be distinguished", is not supported by the sources used in the article, at least not that I can see. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"Is distinct" implies a kind of Wikivoice certainty to me that "is distinguished" does not. "Is distinguished" implies greater human agency and involvement. Perhaps it's just me...

The article, and many other articles I have read, do imply a certain amount of overlap between the concepts of sex and gender. Did you read

https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/188411

on the sources section on the talk page? Just an undergrad thesis, but quite interesting anyway. Tewdar (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

From article:

"*Some people* maintain that the word sex should be reserved for reference to the biological aspects of being male or female or to sexual activity, and that the word gender should be used only to refer to sociocultural roles." Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

From article:

"Gender is also now commonly used even to refer to the physiology of non-human animals, without any implication of social gender roles" Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is not very good, though... its modus operandi is essentially "define sex with biology, define gender with sociology, and let the reader work out the difference". We have articles on sex and gender. This article needs more of the huge number of books and articles discussing the *distinction*. Tewdar (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia is not the Britannica, and we are not allowed to perform WP:OR even where it would make our articles more coherent. And most of the books and articles discussing the *distinction* do so each from an ideosyncratic POV, which would make it difficult to line them up into an article.

In reality, "sex" is a term that applies usually but not always to some "biological" referent, but that referent can be oblique or entirely removed. So demographers often use the category "sex", but do so on a self-report basis without any appeal to biology beyond, possibly, a tooltip or metadata link. Passports typically carry "sex" as an identifier, but the rules for determining who is entitled to an M, and F, or an X on their passport have no definite connection to "biology". And in spite of the convictions of the most activist editors in the area, there is in fact no consensus whether "biological sex" is a meaningful category for individual humans and, if so, whether it should have two or three significant values. And many psychologists and sociologists - not just philosophers like Judith Butler - will insist that "sex" as a category for humans is not something that is passively observed but rather a thing that is actively produced through human activity and agency.

Meanwhile "gender" is used as all of the following: a sloppy but "more polite" pseudo-synonym for "sex" (and this is where I would place the loose uses of the term by biologists for nonhumans), a grammatical term (and the emergence of pronoun choice has rescued this function from near-invisibility, IMO), gender identity, gender roles (and the most vociferous "gender critical" voices typically premise their argument that "gender identities aren't real" with an underlying "but gender roles are") and gender expression. The last of these is perhaps poorly defined and certainly broad in scope, but I do look forward to a day when it can be discussed less defensively, since it may be the aspect within which we can talk most productively about gender being both somewhat rigid and somewhat fluid without being caught in the old ontological debates in which gender identity and gender roles so often seem mired. And in that context, even defining gender negatively as "not having a biological referent" would be a misleading simplification of the various things "gender" is actually used to do.

So, given that sex and gender each refer to such a wide range of actual phenomena, it is no wonder that the "sex-gender distinction" refers to a presupposition of further discussion rather than a "thing" that can be described in a self-sufficient way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

John Money

Those are his exact words FFS :-) Shall I put it in quotes? Tewdar (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

His 1994 retrospective paper - which I checked before editing - attributes "gender role" to 1955 and "gender identity" to 1966. Please stop being exasperated with me when I am demonstrably right. :P Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have access to the 1955 paper? Tewdar (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look for it; I was content with his statement in 1994. Was he wrong about he term "gender identity"?

The citation is the 1955 paper for the distinction. Tewdar (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You haven't provided a quote, nor any other evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation. Quote. You are being silly, and you are wrong. Tewdar (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)